State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Resolution No. 03-22

October 23, 2003

Agenda Item No. 03-8-2

WHEREAS, the Legislature in Health and Safety Code section 39602 has designated

the State Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) as the air pollution control agency for all

purposes set forth in federal law;

WHEREAS, the ARB is responsible for the preparation of the State Implementation Plan

(SIP) for attaining and maintaining the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)

as required by the federal Clean Air Act (the "Act"; 42 U.S.C. section 7401 et seq.), and

to this end is directed by Health and Safety Code section 39602 to coordinate the

activities of all local and regional air pollution control and air quality management

districts (districts) necessary to comply with the Act;

WHEREAS, section 39602 of the Health and Safety Code also provides that the SIP

shall include only those provisions necessary to meet the requirements of the Act;

WHEREAS, the ARB has primary responsibility for the control of air pollution from

vehicular sources, including motor vehicle fuels, as specified in sections 39002, 39500,

and part 5 (commencing with section 43000) of the Health and Safety Code, and for

ensuring that the Districts meet their responsibilities under the Act pursuant to sections

39002, 39500, 39602, 40469, and 41650 of the Health and Safety Code;

WHEREAS, section 41712 of the Health and Safety Code authorizes the ARB to control

volatile organic compound emissions from consumer products, and Health and Safety

Code section 39650 et seq. authorizes the ARB to control toxic air contaminants;

WHEREAS, the ARB is authorized by Health and Safety Code section 39600 to do such

acts as may be necessary for the proper execution of its powers and duties;

WHEREAS, sections 39515 and 39516 of the Health and Safety Code provide that any

duty may be delegated to the Board's Executive Officer as the Board deems

appropriate;

WHEREAS, the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) is authorized to adopt, implement,

and enforce an enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program pursuant

to Health and Safety Code section 44000 et seq.;
Resolution 03-22 2

WHEREAS, the Department of Pesticide Regulation is authorized to control the use of

pesticides for the purposes of protecting human health and the environment, including

improving air quality, pursuant to Food and Agriculture Code Sections 14102, 12781,

12824-12828, and 12976 et seq.;

WHEREAS, on August 1, 2003, the South Coast Air Quality Management District

(District) adopted the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (2003 AQMP), which includes

the local control strategy elements of the proposed 2003 revisions for the South Coast

Air Basin SIPs for ozone, particulate matter ten microns and less (PM10), carbon

monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide, as well as the 2003 Coachella Valley SIP for PM10;

WHEREAS, all of these 2003 SIP revisions rely on emission reductions from the

adopted State control programs and the 2003 ozone SIP also relies on expected

reductions from proposed new State commitments;

WHEREAS, on May 12, 2003, ARB staff circulated for public review the Proposed 2003

State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan (Statewide

Strategy), identifying proposed defined measures for near-term adoption and long-term

measures to be assessed for inclusion in future SIP updates, addressing the

requirements applicable to the SIP revision, and including an analysis of the potential

environmental impacts of the defined statewide measures;

WHEREAS, on August 25, 2003, ARB staff released a revised Statewide Strategy that

incorporated changes based on public comments; such changes include references to

recent ARB action on emission reduction commitments to reduce particulate matter

pollution in the San Joaquin Valley, low-sulfur standards for diesel fuel, consolidation of

two measures targeting large off-road spark-ignition engine emissions, further definition

of ARB's proposal concerning long-term emission reductions for the South Coast Air

Basin, and other minor updates and corrections;

WHEREAS, in further response to public comment, ARB staff proposed changes to the

Statewide Strategy at the October 23, 2003 hearing to modify the text and expected

emission reductions for measures LT/MED-DUTY-1, ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3, and

OFF-RD CI-1, to modify the State's adoption commitments to reflect additional

reductions in reactive organic gas (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from

LT/MED-DUTY-1, and to reflect additional NOx reductions from ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3

and OFF-RD CI-1;

WHEREAS, Attachment A to this Resolution summarizes the revisions to the Statewide

Strategy document, including modified text for measures LT/MED-DUTY-1,

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3, and OFF-RD CI-1, as well as modified versions of Table I-6,

State Annual Adoption Commitments for Near-Term Measures; and Table I-7, State

Strategy for the South Coast Ozone SIP;
Resolution 03-22 3

WHEREAS, in response to comments containing specific proposals for new measures

to be included in the Statewide Strategy, ARB staff proposed at the October 23, 2003

hearing an additional State commitment to evaluate additional control concepts between

2004 and 2006;

WHEREAS, Attachment A to this Resolution includes the additional State commitments

to evaluate additional control concepts between 2004 and 2006; measures found to be

feasible will be brought to the Board for its consideration between 2005 and 2009;

staff’s feasibility evaluation will include analyses of cost-effectiveness, potential

emission benefits, technical feasibility, socioeconomic impacts and environmental

justice considerations as well as the identification of funding and legal constraints;

WHEREAS, at the October 23, 2003 hearing the Board added a new commitment for a

measure to achieve 97 tons per day (tpd) of combined ROG and NOx reductions in the

South Coast Air Basin by 2010, as specified in Attachment A-7 to this Resolution;

WHEREAS, in its presentation to the Board at the October 23, 2003 hearing, ARB staff

proposed that the State achieve up to 66 tpd of the long-term ROG plus NOx reduction

commitment in the South Coast Air Basin in 2010 from concepts (including those

described in Attachment A-1) that would require new authority or funding to implement,

contingent on obtaining adequate authority and funding;

WHEREAS, the revisions to the Statewide Strategy document reflected in Attachment A

were made available to the public at the October 23, 2003 hearing prior to Board action;

WHEREAS, at the October 23, 2003 hearing, the Board amended the Statewide

Strategy document to incorporate the additional commitments reflected in Attachment A

to this Resolution; together, these documents comprise the Final Statewide Strategy;

WHEREAS, the Final Statewide Strategy would update and entirely replace the

comprehensive State control strategy and specific measures contained in the applicable

1994 Ozone SIP (as modified in 1999 for the South Coast Air Basin);

WHEREAS, measure ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3 in the Final Statewide Strategy would

replace the Board’s commitment for mobile source measure M-17, Additional Emission

Reductions From Heavy-Duty Vehicles, submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (U.S. EPA) on April 15, 1998, but never approved by U.S. EPA as a SIP

revision;

WHEREAS, the Final Statewide Strategy includes the proposed State commitments in

Section I.D.1 for new measures and emission reductions to help the South Coast Air

Basin attain the ozone NAAQS by 2010;
Resolution 03-22 4

WHEREAS, the modified State commitments for emission reductions in the South Coast

Air Basin as described in Attachment A to this Resolution replace the corresponding

numbers presented throughout the revised Statewide Strategy document released on

August 25, 2003;

WHEREAS, for areas of the State that have not yet achieved the full amount of

emission reductions that ARB previously committed to in the existing SIP, the Final

Statewide Strategy would retain the statewide commitments to achieve those same

aggregate emission reductions;

WHEREAS, when nonattainment areas develop new or revised attainment SIPs, the

State commitments for new measures and emission reductions would be reflected as

necessary to achieve the air quality goals of the region;

WHEREAS, the Final Statewide Strategy includes a commitment by BAR to improve the

existing Enhanced I/M program by achieving additional reductions;

WHEREAS, Appendix I-1 of the Final Statewide Strategy includes evidence of BAR’s

commitment to implement the Enhanced I/M improvements described in measure

LT/MED-DUTY-2;

WHEREAS, the Final Statewide Strategy proposes that ARB staff would commit to

submit to the Board and propose for adoption the 19 defined near-term statewide ARB

control measures, plus the additional ARB measure for the South Coast Air Basin set

forth in Attachment A-7;

WHEREAS, the Final Statewide Strategy proposes that the Board shall take action on

the ARB near-term measures and, in combination with the benefits of the Enhanced I/M

improvements by BAR, achieve the annual emission reductions for the South Coast Air

Basin specified in Table I-6 on or before the dates in Table I-6; such action by the Board

may include any action within its discretion;

WHEREAS, the Final Statewide Strategy proposes that the State would achieve

additional emission reductions in defined near-term measures of 50 tpd of ROG and 59

tpd of NOx in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010;

WHEREAS, the Final Statewide Strategy proposes that the State may meet the

emission reduction commitments for the South Coast Air Basin by adopting one or more

of the defined control measures, by adopting one or more alternative measures, or by

implementing incentive program(s), so long as the total new reductions in ROG and

NOx by 2010 are achieved;
Resolution 03-22 5

WHEREAS, the 2003 ozone attainment demonstration for the South Coast Air Basin

demonstrates a need for additional ROG and NOx emission reductions from new longterm measures to attain the ozone NAAQS;

WHEREAS, the South Coast District adopted a local commitment to achieve 31 tpd of

the ROG reductions needed from new long-term measures;

WHEREAS sources under federal jurisdiction make up 31 percent of NOx emissions

and 8 percent of ROG emissions in the 2010 baseline inventory of the 2003 Ozone SIP

for the South Coast Air Basin;

WHEREAS, the 2003 Ozone SIP for the South Coast Air Basin and the Final Statewide

Strategy propose that federal sources contribute further emission reductions of 18 tpd

ROG and 68 tpd NOx in the South Coast Air Basin as part of the long-term measures

needed by 2010;

WHEREAS, the ARB is charged with ensuring California's SIP compliance, and is thus

ultimately responsible for ensuring that the necessary long-term measures are identified

by 2007 and the emission reductions are achieved by 2010;

WHEREAS, in the Final Statewide Strategy, ARB staff proposes the long-term strategy

that would require ARB to lead a multi-agency (State, federal, local) effort with the

public between now and 2007 to assess potential control concepts for every type of

emission source and develop the full scope of strategies needed to achieve the

remaining emission reductions from new long-term measures in the South Coast Air

Basin by 2010;

WHEREAS, if U.S. EPA does not carry out its legal responsibility for new emission

reductions, ARB staff proposes that the federal reductions of 18 tpd of ROG and 68 tpd

of NOx be added to the ARB long-term commitment;

WHEREAS, federal law as set forth in section 110(l) of the Act and title 40, C.F.R.,

section 51.102 requires that one or more public hearings, preceded by at least 30 days

notice and opportunity for public review, must be conducted prior to the adoption and

submittal to U.S. EPA of any SIP revision;

WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that no project

which may have significant adverse environmental impacts may be adopted as

originally proposed if feasible alternatives or mitigation measures are available to

reduce or eliminate such impacts, unless specific overriding considerations are

identified which outweigh the potential adverse consequences of any unmitigated

impacts;
Resolution 03-22 6

WHEREAS, Board regulations provide that prior to taking final action on any proposal

for which significant environmental issues have been raised, the decision maker shall

approve a written response to each such issue;

WHEREAS, in consideration of the Statewide Strategy, the changes reflected in

Attachment A, the written and oral testimony presented by the public, industry, and

government agencies, and the environmental documentation prepared by Board staff,

the Board finds that:

1. Combined emissions of ROG and NOx are projected to decline by over 960 tpd

between 1997 and 2010 due to adopted State, federal, and local controls.

2. Additional emission reductions from State measures are needed to protect public

health and attain the NAAQS in the South Coast by 2010. The District has relied

on these reductions to demonstrate attainment in the 2003 AQMP, and has

requested their inclusion as part of the South Coast Air Basin Ozone SIP.

3. The ARB is the lead agency for the State measures element of the South Coast

SIP revision, has considered the environmental analysis set forth in Section V of

the Statewide Strategy, and concurs in the analysis of potential environmental

impacts.

4. The ARB’s environmental analysis indicates that there may be potential adverse

environmental impacts from the proposed State measures in the areas of air

quality, water quality, energy demand, hazardous waste, and solid waste;

however, these impacts are speculative and cannot be quantified until the scope

of the measures is defined by actual proposed regulations.

5. The Board has considered alternatives to the State measures and has identified

no feasible alternatives at this time which would reduce or eliminate any potential

adverse environmental impacts, while at the same time ensuring that necessary

emission reductions will be achieved.

6. At this time there are no feasible mitigation measures that ARB can impose to

lessen the potential adverse impacts of the proposed State measures on the

environment, and no less stringent alternatives which will accomplish the goals

imposed by federal law with fewer potential environmental impacts.

7. None of the modifications made to the Statewide Strategy since May 12, 2003

alter any of the conclusions reached in the environmental impact analysis, or

would require recalculation of the environmental analysis as provided in CEQA

guidelines section 15088.5.
Resolution 03-22 7

8. The potential adverse environmental impacts of the proposed State measures

are outweighed by the substantial air quality benefits that will result from their

adoption and implementation.

9. The considerations identified above override any adverse environmental impacts

that may occur from adoption and implementation of the State measures.

10. As regulations implementing the new ARB measures are developed, detailed

environmental impact analyses, including a discussion of regulatory alternatives

and mitigation measures, will be performed in conjunction with the rulemaking

process.

11. As regulations implementing the new ARB measures are developed, specific

economic impact analyses will be performed in conjunction with the rulemaking

process and considered by the Board in acting on those regulations.

12. ARB regulations which have been adopted and are reflected in the baseline

emission projections in the SIP were subjected to environmental review by the

Board at the time of their adoption and no further analysis is required at this time.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Board hereby approves the SIP revision

and adopts the SIP commitments for statewide measures set forth in the Statewide

Strategy, as modified by Attachment A to this Resolution, including specific emission

reductions from defined near-term measures for the South Coast Air Basin by 2010 and

a schedule of commitments to evaluate additional control concepts between 2004 and

2006; measures found to be feasible will be brought to the Board for its consideration

between 2005 and 2009; staff’s feasibility evaluation will include analyses of costeffectiveness, potential emission benefits, technical feasibility, socioeconomic impacts

and environmental justice considerations as well as the identification of funding and

legal constraints;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Board approves the written responses to significant

environmental issues that were raised during the comment period; these responses are

set forth in Attachment B to this Resolution;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Board directs the Executive Officer to forward these

ARB and BAR commitments to the U.S. EPA for inclusion in the SIP to be effective, for

purposes of federal law, upon approval by the U.S. EPA.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board delegates authority to the Executive

Officer to calculate and commit to new emission reductions from implementation of the

Final Statewide Strategy that she determines to be appropriate for specific areas

violating the NAAQS in California, as attainment SIPs are developed or revised in those

areas.
Resolution 03-22 8

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board directs the Executive Officer to work with

the U.S. EPA and take appropriate action to resolve any completeness or approvability

issues that may arise regarding the SIP submission.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board directs the Executive Officer to return to

the Board in no later than one year with explicit agency allocations, at the State and

local level, for the remainder of the long-term reductions.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board directs the Executive Officer to conduct,

during each of the next three years, an annual SIP Implementation Summit with

participation from technical experts, academia, consultants, and other interested

stakeholders.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board directs the Executive Officer to return to

the Board every 12 months over the next three years with explicit ARB commitments for

the adoption and implementation of control measures to achieve the long-term

reductions contained in the approved State strategy.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board directs the Executive Officer to continue

to review the technological feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and economic impacts of the

defined ARB measures and to include any necessary and appropriate modifications to

the control strategies when they are proposed for Board consideration.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board certifies pursuant to 40 C.F.R. section

51.102 that the State elements being considered as a SIP revision were adopted after

notice and public hearing as required by 40 C.F.R. section 51.102, and directs the

Executive Officer to submit the appropriate supporting documentation to U.S. EPA

along with any SIP submittal that is approved.

I hereby certify that the above is a true and

correct copy of Resolution 03-22, as adopted

by the Air Resources Board.

/s/

Stacey Dorais, Clerk of the Board
ATTACHMENT A

October 23, 2003 Revisions to

Proposed State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan
1 Attachment A-1

ATTACHMENT A-1

Schedule for Evaluation of Long-term Measures

And, Where Feasible, Adoption

The Air Resources Board commits staff to evaluate the feasibility of the following control concepts for

adoption as State Implementation Plan (SIP) measures by the dates specified below. Staff's

feasibility evaluation will include analyses of potential emission benefits, technical feasibility, costeffectiveness, socioeconomic impacts and environmental justice considerations as well as the

identification of funding and legal constraints. Where funding or legal authority constraints have been

identified, Board adoption dates are contingent on the availability of funding or legislative action to

address these constraints. ARB commits to bring those measures that are found to be feasible, in

consideration of all the factors listed above, to the Board for consideration according to the listed

adoption dates.

Category Description Evaluation

Completion

Date

Adoption

Date

In-Use

Light/Medium Duty

Vehicles

■ Obtain funding incentives to voluntarily retire passenger

vehicles, including evaluation of OEM vehicle

manufacturers accelerating vehicle retirement based on

sales

2005

2007

(Funding may

be needed)

■ Evaluate repealing the 30-year rolling exemption

2004

2006

(Authority

needed)

■ Evaluate more stringent post-repair smog check cutpoints

2004 2005-2006

■ Evaluate Phase III OBD with remote notification

2005-2006

2008

(Authority

needed)

■ Evaluate annual inspections for older vehicles

2004

2006

(Authority

needed)

Smog Check

■ Evaluate ASM testing for all wheel drive vehicles 2004 2005-2006
Resolution 03-22

2 Attachment A-1

Category Description Evaluation

Completion

Date

Adoption

Date

Off-Road Vehicles ■ Obtain funding for cleaner off-road equipment

2005-2006

2008

(Funding

needed)

On-Road Heavy

Duty Vehicles

■ Obtain funding for incentives for cleaner trucks and buses,

including school buses, and consideration of alternative

diesel fuels 2005-2006

2007

(Funding

needed)

■ Evaluate strategies to accelerate turnover of existing

2-stroke marine engines

2006

2007

(Funding

needed)

Recreational

Vehicles/Marine

■ Evaluate further emission reductions from

retrofit/replacement of existing marine engines 2006 2007-2009

■ Evaluate requiring up to 60% of residential lawn and

garden equipment to be electric 2004 2006-2009 Small Off-Road

Engines ■ Obtain funding for incentives to scrap small off-road

engines

2005

2007

(Funding

needed)

■ With SCAQMD and ports, evaluate options for requiring

cold ironing for ships that frequently visit South Coast

ports

2004 2005

Ships/Ports

■ Evaluate strategies to reduce emissions from auxiliary

engines on ships while hotelling 2004 2006

■ Evaluate approaches to reduce emissions from in-use

locomotives 2005-2006 2005-2006

■ Evaluate emission reductions for switcher and short-haul

locomotives not subject to the MOU 2004 2006-2009

Locomotives

■ Evaluate approaches to reduce emissions from passenger

rail 2005 2005-2006

■ Evaluate standards for diesel engine lubricating oils 2005-2006 2006-2009

■ Evaluate fuel standards for locomotives and marine

vessels 2004 2006

Fuels

■ Evaluate new reformulated gasoline standards 2004 2006-2009

Consumer Products ■ Evaluate further consumer products regulations 2005-2006 2006-2009
Resolution 03-22

1 Attachment A-2

ATTACHMENT A-2

REVISED LT/MED-DUTY-1

a. LT/MED-DUTY-1: Replace or Upgrade Emission Control Systems on

Existing Passenger Vehicles

Time Frame: Adopt 2005; Implement 2007-2008

Responsible Agency: ARB

Proposed Strategy:

ARB is currently performing a test program to evaluate the potential benefits of

mandatory replacement of catalysts, oxygen sensors and evaporative emission carbon

canisters on older passenger cars. These components are the heart of a modern

emission control system, but they deteriorate during the life of a vehicle through thermal

stress and chemical contamination. While it is known that these components

deteriorate, the benefits associated with their replacement are less certain because of

interactions between the "new" parts and the other "old" parts of a vehicle.

As of October 2003, through the test program, ARB has replaced oxygen

sensors and/or catalysts on about two dozen vehicles and evaporative canisters on

about 30 vehicles. Results have been mixed, with the most promising results so far

from the replacement of catalysts. ARB plans more testing to further investigate repair

effectiveness, durability of repair, and cost-effectiveness.

It is possible that a mandatory equipment replacement program could specify

lower cost "new" parts (i.e., aftermarket parts), because the remainder of the vehicle's

life is expected to be short at the time of retrofit. The performance of the lower cost

parts needs to be evaluated compared to the old parts on the cars and to new factory

(higher cost, original equipment) parts.

The most likely mechanism to identify vehicles for a mandatory replacement

program is through the biennial Smog Check program. In addition, ARB and the Bureau

of Automotive Repair (BAR) are currently conducting a $2 million remote sensing study.

One goal of the study is to investigate whether remote sensing could be an effective tool

to supplement Smog Check by identifying high-emitting vehicles. Other goals of the

study include determining whether remote sensing could be used to clean screen

vehicles and exempt them from Smog Check, to direct vehicles to test-only stations,

and/or to characterize the California vehicle fleet.

The test program needs to include enough cars to provide reasonable confidence

in its conclusions. Testing one car takes from a couple of weeks to a month. Thus,

given the time necessary to complete the test program, the decision on whether to
Resolution 03-22

2 Attachment A-2

proceed with a mandatory program is expected to occur in 2004. Regulations would

follow in 2005, if the pilot program shows the potential for significant benefits at

reasonable cost and funding can be identified. The program would be implemented in

2007 or 2008, with benefits between zero (decision not to proceed) to 20 tpd of ROG

and 20 tpd of NOx in the South Coast Air Basin in 2010. These estimates include an

additional 1 tpd of ROG and 2 tpd of NOx benefits from including medium-duty vehicles

in the parts replacement program. The benefits for the South Coast and the San

Joaquin Valley are summarized in Tables II-A-6 and II-A-7. (The staff has not yet

estimated the benefits of adding medium-duty vehicles to the parts replacement

program in the San Joaquin Valley, so Table II-A-7 does not reflect these benefits.) If

improvements to California’s Smog Check program occur, they would impact the same

vehicles targeted by the mandatory equipment replacement program and so might

reduce the potential emission benefits of such a program.

Table II-A-6

LT/MED-DUTY-1: Replace or Upgrade Emission Control

Systems on Existing Passenger Vehicles

(South Coast, Summer Planning, tpd)

Pollutant 2010

ROG 0-20

NOx 0-20

CO 0-140

Table II-A-7

LT/MED-DUTY-1: Replace or Upgrade Emission Control

Systems on Existing Passenger Vehicles

(San Joaquin Valley, Winter Planning, tpd)

Pollutant 2010

ROG 0-2.4

NOx 0-2.7

PM10 0

SIP Commitment for Measure LT/MED-DUTY-1

South Coast 2003 SIP Commitment:

ARB staff proposes to commit to bring this measure to the Board by 2005. The

measure as proposed to the Board will achieve, at a minimum, between 0 and 20 tpd of

ROG reductions and between 0 and 20 tpd of NOx reductions in the South Coast Air

Basin in 2010.
Resolution 03-22

3 Attachment A-2

San Joaquin Valley 2003 PM10 SIP Commitment:

On June 26, 2003, the Board approved State commitments for the San Joaquin

Valley’s PM10 SIP. ARB staff commits to complete the Pilot Program and propose a

control measure if the approach described above proves to be feasible and effective. If

the approach is found to be feasible and effective, the Board will consider this measure

by 2005. Emission reductions from this measure will be used toward meeting ARB’s

commitment to adopt new measures between 2002 and 2008 that reduce emissions by

an additional 10 tpd NOx and 0.5 tpd direct PM10 in the San Joaquin Valley by 2010.

Commitments for Future SIPs:

As other areas of the State develop attainment SIPs that require additional

emission reductions to show progress and/or attainment, we will work with the

appropriate local air districts to determine which State and/or federal measures are

appropriate to include for federal approval.
Resolution 03-22

1 Attachment A-3

ATTACHMENT A-3

REVISED ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3

c. ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3: Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing

and New Truck/Bus Fleet -- In-Use Emission Control, Engine

Software Upgrade, On-Board Diagnostics, Manufacturers’ In-Use

Compliance, Reduced Idling

Time Frame: Adopt 2003-2006; Implement 2004-2010

Responsible Agency: ARB

Proposed Strategy:

New engine standards, together with compliance and enforcement programs

designed to ensure that new engines maintain their low emission levels, will provide

significant reductions over time. In addition to implementing programs that target new

engines and vehicles, ARB must also focus its efforts on reducing emissions from the

existing heavy-duty diesel vehicle fleet in order to improve air quality and benefit public

health in the near-term. The measures discussed here form a comprehensive strategy

to reduce harmful emissions from both the new and in-use heavy-duty vehicle fleet and

to ensure that ARB’s heavy-duty vehicle program achieves maximum emission benefits.

In 1998, ARB revised the South Coast SIP to replace measure M7, Accelerated

Retirement of Heavy-Duty Vehicles, with measure M17, In-Use Reductions from HeavyDuty Vehicles. M17 described two strategies to reduce emissions from in-use heavyduty vehicles – incorporating NOx screening into existing roadside smoke inspection to

identify malmaintained vehicles for repair and developing an in-use compliance testing

and recall program (including the potential use of on-board diagnostic systems). The

measure also included market-based incentives as a supplement to ensure that the

emission reduction commitments in M17 were met. U.S. EPA has not approved this

SIP revision. Since 1998, ARB staff has investigated the two strategies described in

M17. Results from field tests indicate that repairing malmaintained heavy-duty engines

is not an effective strategy – sometimes leading to post-repair increases in NOx

emissions. ARB staff believes that engine software upgrades (described below) are a

more effective means of reducing emissions from trucks that are already on the road.

ARB staff is continuing to pursue programs aimed at requiring on-board diagnostic

systems and in-use vehicle testing. These programs are incorporated into this

measure.

In-Use Emission Controls: In February 2000, ARB adopted a fleet rule that

requires public transit agencies to aggressively reduce NOx and PM emissions from

their urban buses. The use of hardware-based retrofit systems verified through ARB’s

Diesel Emission Control Strategy Verification Procedure to reduce PM emissions is an

important part of the transit bus rule. As called for in the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan,

which was adopted by the Board in September 2000, ARB is expanding its opportunities
Resolution 03-22

2 Attachment A-3

to achieve PM reductions, and in most cases, ROG reductions, through the

implementation of additional rules targeting specific heavy-duty diesel trucks. The inuse emissions control rules were originally envisioned as primarily PM control

measures; however, because of the statewide need for NOx reductions and the need to

minimize impacts on affected heavy-duty diesel fleets, the ARB is now committing to an

integrated approach to achieve PM, NOx, and ROG reductions.

PM, NOx, and ROG emission reductions may be achieved through a variety of

strategies, including engine repowers, accelerated fleet turnover, and retrofits with

verified emission control strategies. The use of cleaner fuels, including alternative fuels,

low sulfur diesel fuel, and alternative diesel fuels (such as diesel water emulsions) may

also contribute to emission reductions. As with other ARB regulations, the in-use rules

will not prescribe the emission control strategies that fleet operators must use. The

strategies that operators select, however, must use ARB-verified technology and ARBcertified engines, and must meet the emission reduction targets specified by the in-use

rules.

Depending on the strategy chosen by operators, the use of low-sulfur diesel fuel

may be an integral strategy component. Most catalyst-based diesel particulate filters

provide the greatest emission reductions when used with low-sulfur diesel fuel (sulfur

content of 15 ppmw or less), and some NOx retrofit systems may require the use of low

sulfur diesel fuel as well. One retrofit system that requires the use of low-sulfur diesel

fuel combines a lean NOx catalyst with a diesel particulate filter; this system has already

been verified by the ARB for use on limited engine families produced by two engine

manufacturers.

Through the Diesel Emission Control Strategy Verification Procedure, ARB

adopted a multi-level approach for categorizing strategies based on their verified PM

emission reductions. “Level 1” verification applies to strategies that achieve at least a

25 percent PM reduction; “Level 2” verification applies to strategies that achieve at least

a 50 percent PM reduction; and “Level 3” verification applies to strategies that achieve

at least an 85 percent PM reduction, or reduce exhaust PM levels to no more than

0.01 g/bhp-hr. The verification procedure also allows for strategy verification based on

a minimum 15 percent NOx emission reduction when coupled with at least a Level 1 PM

verification. Together with regulations that will require the use of retrofits or other

strategies verified to the highest level possible, this multi-level approach ensures the

development of high-efficiency control strategies. At the same time, it allows for lower

level reductions in applications where higher level options are not yet available, thus

ensuring that diesel PM and NOx emissions are reduced in a timely manner when and

where they can be realized.

The in-use emission reduction rules are intended to provide a flexible and

progressive in-use emission control program that achieves the highest level of PM

emission control possible while also achieving significant NOx reductions. As stated

previously, the in-use rules were originally intended to focus primarily on PM reductions.

The staff also expected the rules to achieve some level of ROG reductions. The
Resolution 03-22

3 Attachment A-3

currently verified diesel particulate filters, for instance, achieve ROG reductions

commensurate with the level of PM reductions achieved. The staff now also expects

the fleet rules to achieve NOx reductions. NOx reductions will be based on a particular

strategy’s verified NOx reduction capability; strategies verified for NOx reductions must

achieve a minimum 15 percent reduction and may be verified for greater NOx

reductions in 5 percent increments.

Table II-B-7 presents staff’s estimate of the range of emission benefits for the

South Coast Air Basin that would be achieved through implementation of the fleet rules.

Table II-B-7

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3: Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the

Existing and New Truck/Bus Fleet: In-Use Emission Control

Estimated Emission Reductions

(South Coast, Summer Planning, tpd)

Pollutant

2005 2006

(Annual

Average)

2008 2010 2020

ROG 0.04 – 0.09 0.09-0.3 0.8 – 2.6 1.4 – 4.5 0.5 – 1.7

NOx Not Quantified 8 - 10 NQ

PM10 0.02 – 0.04 0.03 – 0.2 0.2 – 1 0.4 – 1.6 0.2 – 0.5

CO Not Quantified 6 - 18 NQ

Engine Software Upgrade: ARB staff is proposing to require the installation of

low NOx software in heavy-duty diesel vehicles with 1993 through 1998 model year

engines for which low NOx software was developed under the Consent Decrees. The

installation of low NOx software is also known as engine recalibration, chip reflash or

engine software upgrade. In this procedure, the engine’s electronic control module

(ECM) is reprogrammed to reduce NOx emissions from levels achieved during typical

in-use driving conditions.

Prior to installing low NOx software, the 1993 through 1998 model year engines

emit “off-cycle” NOx. Off cycle NOx are emissions greater than the emissions allowed

in the engine certification process; these off-cycle emissions occur when the ECM

recognizes that the engine is not being driven in accordance with the federal test

procedure used for engine certification.

Upgrading the software on a heavy-duty diesel engine’s ECM provides

opportunities to reduce NOx emissions. To comply with the Low NOx Rebuild Program

contained in the federal Consent Decrees and similar state Settlement Agreements,

engine manufacturers were required to provide engine dealers and distributors with low

NOx rebuild kits to reduce the off-cycle emissions from specified engines. Under the

provisions of the Consent Decrees, these kits implement certain software and/or minor

hardware changes to achieve the necessary NOx reductions. To date, the available low
Resolution 03-22

4 Attachment A-3

NOx rebuild kits have relied only on engine software upgrades; the kits have not

included hardware changes. In general, the engine software upgrade reduces NOx

emissions by eliminating advanced computer controls – “defeat devices” – that produce

excess off-cycle NOx emissions during steady-state vehicle operation, such as onhighway driving.

When the Consent Decrees were signed, it was assumed that the low NOx

rebuild kits would be installed at the time of normal engine rebuild, typically around

200,000 to 300,000 miles of service. The engine manufacturers have complied with the

provisions of the Low NOx Rebuild Program requiring them to provide dealers and

distributors with low NOx rebuild kits (i.e., engine software upgrade kits). ARB staff,

however, estimates that only four to ten percent of the low NOx rebuild kits have been

installed in applicable engines. As diesel engines have become increasingly durable,

fewer rebuilds are being performed or are performed at higher mileage intervals. As

such, the Low NOx Rebuild Program has not yet achieved its expected emission

benefits.

The ARB staff believes that off-cycle NOx emissions should be eliminated now.

To ensure that emission benefits are achieved, ARB staff will propose to the Board in

October 2003 a mandatory heavy-duty diesel engine software upgrade measure to

reduce NOx emissions. We estimate that there are about 100,000 California-registered

heavy-duty diesel vehicles with engines eligible for the software upgrades.

Implementation of this measure would begin in 2004. This measure would expand upon

the original requirements of the Low NOx Rebuild Program by requiring the installation

of software upgrades on applicable engines. The proposed mandatory measure would

not require any engine hardware changes. The reductions associated with this

proposed measure are necessary to mitigate a portion of the off-cycle emissions that

occurred due to the use of “defeat devices.”

Table II-B-8 below shows the estimated NOx reductions that could be achieved

through the implementation of a mandatory engine software upgrade measure. These

reduction estimates are based on the assumption that software upgrades are installed

on all applicable 1993 through 1998 model year heavy heavy-duty diesel and medium

heavy-duty diesel engines in vehicles registered in California. The estimates presented

below were calculated using confidential emissions data obtained during the Consent

Decree negotiations, and VMT estimates provided by the Southern California

Association of Governments. ARB staff intends to propose that engines in heavy-duty

diesel vehicles registered out of state also be subject to this regulatory measure; the

staff is now in the process of finalizing any additional emission benefits that may be

achieved.
Resolution 03-22

5 Attachment A-3

Table II-B-8

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3: Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing

and New Truck/Bus Fleet: Mandatory Engine Software Upgrade

Estimated Emission Reductions for MHDDE and HHDDE

California Registered Trucks

(South Coast, Summer Planning, tpd)

Pollutant 2005

2006

(Annual

Average)

2008 2010 2020

NOx 13 - 17 12 – 16 11 -14 8 - 10 0 - 1

On-Board Diagnostics (OBD): As ARB implements more stringent emission

standards, engine manufacturers are incorporating into their engine designs more

sophisticated emission control devices such as exhaust gas recirculation systems, fuel

injection rate shaping techniques, particulate filters, NOx adsorbers, and other

electronic controls. To maintain low emission levels over time, these emission control

devices must continue to perform properly throughout each vehicle’s life.

One strategy to ensure that sophisticated emission controls perform adequately

over time is to require a comprehensive OBD system on all heavy-duty vehicles. The

current diagnostic systems voluntarily implemented by manufacturers are designed

primarily to detect gross failures of components (e.g., disconnections and other circuit

failures, rather than deterioration or reduced performance) without regard to the

emission level associated with the malfunction. The measure proposed here would

require OBD systems to detect malfunctions of virtually every component that can

cause an emission increase before the emissions exceed a specified level. While

discussed here primarily as a heavy-duty diesel engine strategy, it would also apply to

heavy-duty gasoline engines used in vehicles with a GVWR greater than 14,000

pounds.

The comprehensive OBD system would alert the vehicle operator of the

malfunction through a dashboard light; valuable information about the malfunction would

be stored in the on-board computer to assist technicians in diagnosing and repairing the

malfunction. As with light-duty vehicles, an OBD system for heavy-duty vehicles would

likely not require the addition of many new sensors or components. Instead, the OBD

system would consist primarily of software in the existing on-board computer and would

use many of the existing engine and emission control sensors.

Because the heavy-duty vehicle fleet is predominantly diesel-fueled, the benefits

of an OBD program would primarily be associated with heavy-duty diesel vehicles with

GVWRs greater than 14,000 pounds. Nonetheless, the potential OBD strategy would

also apply to gasoline heavy-duty vehicles with GVWRs greater than 14,000 pounds,

and would also provide additional emission benefits from heavy-duty gasoline vehicles.
Resolution 03-22

6 Attachment A-3

ARB staff is working closely with U.S. EPA on developing an OBD program for

heavy-duty engines and vehicles. ARB staff expects to present a proposal to the Board

in the 2003 to 2004 timeframe with implementation beginning in 2007. Because many

trucks in interstate commerce are registered outside of California, it is also necessary

for U.S. EPA to adopt the same regulatory requirements. We expect U.S. EPA adoption

in 2004 with federal implementation also beginning in 2007.

Manufacturer-Required In-Use Vehicle Testing: This proposed measure

would require manufacturers of heavy-duty diesel engines to test a specific number of

engines per engine family by procuring and testing in-use vehicles at various mileage

intervals. The responsibility for procuring and testing vehicles would be on the engine

manufacturers, not on ARB. If the vehicles tested do not meet applicable emission

standards, the engine manufacturer may be required to test additional vehicles to

determine if an engine recall is required. This program component may also include

mechanisms to streamline the engine certification process in order to ease engine

manufacturers’ testing burden. ARB is working closely with U.S. EPA to develop this

measure. ARB staff expects to propose this measure to the Board in 2004, the same

timeframe in which U.S. EPA is expected to adopt an in-use compliance program.

Beginning in 2005, a pilot program in California will be used to generate data and gain

experience in testing heavy-duty diesel engines on-road with on-board measurement

systems. A fully implemented and enforceable manufacturer-run in-use compliance

program for both ARB and U.S EPA will begin in 2007.

Reduced Truck and Bus Idling: To date, ARB’s heavy-duty emission control

program has focused on engine emission standards without specifically targeting idling

emissions. Nonetheless, ARB staff recognizes that idling emissions pose a serious air

quality and health threat, particularly at warehouse/distribution centers located in areas

that may already be disproportionately impacted by pollution, or at school bus stops

populated by young children who are particularly sensitive to the impacts of pollution.

During idle operations, heavy-duty vehicles consume large amounts of diesel

fuel, increase emissions, and produce noise. While idling practices vary among truck

drivers by season and geographic location, a study by the Argonne National Laboratory

indicates that long-haul trucks in the United States idle between five hours and ten

hours per day, depending on the season. This same study also estimates that the

average heavy-duty long-haul truck idles about six hours per day for 303 days

annually1

. When resting or sleeping, truck drivers may keep the engine running at idle

to heat or cool the sleeper and/or cab, and to provide power to operate on-board

appliances such as refrigerators, microwaves, television sets, and laptop computers.

Heavy-duty trucks are also typically operated at idle to keep the engine block and diesel

fuel warm for easy start-up during the winter months.

Some proactive trucking firms implement their own voluntary restricted-idling

programs, and certain cities and municipalities already enforce ordinances that prohibit

 

1 Stodolsky, F.; Gaines, L.; Vyas, A. Analysis of Technology Options to Reduce the Fuel Consumption of

Idling Trucks; Argonne National Laboratory; ANL/ESD-43. June 2000.
Resolution 03-22

7 Attachment A-3

extended idling. ARB staff is now developing measures expanding upon these local

efforts to reduce idling emissions from both new and in-use heavy-duty diesel vehicles.

New Vehicles: For new vehicles, ARB staff plans to present to the Board a

proposal in the 2003-2004 timeframe that would require idle-limiting devices on

California-registered new heavy heavy-duty vehicles (diesel vehicles with GVWRs

greater than 33,000 pounds) starting with the 2007 model year. These vehicles are

typically used in line haul service and provide the greatest opportunities for reductions in

idling emissions. The idle-limiting devices could range from systems that automatically

shut down an engine after a specific time, to stop/start systems that automatically stop

and start the engine as necessary to maintain engine and cab temperature and battery

voltage within pre-set limits. Different idle-limiting technologies would be fully evaluated

during ARB’s public process for regulatory development. This regulatory strategy could

also incorporate the use of alternative power systems, such as auxiliary power units,

thermal storage systems, and truck stop electrification, to supply power for cab and onboard appliance functions as necessary.

Based on staff estimates, NOx emissions would be reduced by less than one ton

per day in the SCAB in 2010. This estimate is based on the assumption that the

average idling time for a heavy heavy-duty diesel truck would be reduced by 25 percent

to 50 percent through the use of an idle-limiting device.

In-Use Vehicles: ARB in December 2002 adopted an Airborne Toxic Control

Measure (ATCM) to reduce idling emissions from school buses, thereby reducing toxic

diesel PM and other associated toxic air contaminants. The ATCM also includes

provisions to limit idling from other heavy-duty vehicles operating near and on school

grounds. While the ATCM provides some modest emission benefits that would reduce

region-wide exposure to unhealthful exhaust emissions, the main purpose of the

measure is to reduce localized exposure to diesel PM and other toxic air contaminants

in the vicinity of schools.

To address heavy-duty vehicles operating at locations other than schools, ARB

staff also plans to conduct an assessment to identify possible approaches for reducing

diesel PM emitted from heavy-duty trucks and transit buses during idling operations.

ARB staff plans to complete this assessment by the end of 2003. This assessment

would examine the magnitude of current and future idling emissions, the level of human

exposure, and possible approaches for reducing idling emissions. Staff would examine

a wide range of approaches. Approaches to be examined would include operator

education programs, public information, and fleet operator training programs. Additional

approaches to be examined would include local ordinances restricting idling, no-idle

zones, and requiring idle-limiting devices for certain fleets. Development of an airborne

toxic control measure would be pursued to implement the regulatory aspects of this

effort.
Resolution 03-22

8 Attachment A-3

Alternatively, ARB staff may consider the feasibility of a legislative approach to

restrict heavy-duty vehicles throughout the State from idling for extended time periods at

loading docks, bus stops, and other areas where idling emissions occur. Similar to the

regulatory approach, this strategy would restrict idling at various sources, thus reducing

toxic diesel PM emissions and other associated toxic air contaminants.

Table II-B-9 shows the estimated emission benefits from all the approaches in

this measure in the San Joaquin Valley. The staff has not yet estimated the additional

NOx reductions that could be achieved in the San Joaquin Valley through

implementation of the in-use emission control fleet rules. As such, the additional NOx

reductions are not reflected in the table below.

Table II-B-9

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3: Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing and New

Truck/Bus Fleet –In-Use Emission Control, Engine Software Upgrade, OnBoard Diagnostics, Manufacturers’ In-Use Compliance, Reduced Idling

Estimated Emission Reductions

(San Joaquin Valley, Winter Planning, tpd)

Pollutant 2010

ROG 1.5

NOx 4

PM10 0.1

SIP Commitment for Measure ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3

South Coast 2003 SIP Commitment:

ARB staff proposes to commit to bring this measure to the Board between 2003

and 2006. The measure as proposed to the Board will, at a minimum, achieve between

1.4 and 4.5 tpd of ROG reductions and between 16 and 21 tpd of NOx reductions in the

South Coast Air Basin in 2010.

San Joaquin Valley 2003 PM10 SIP Commitment:

On June 26, 2003, the Board approved State commitments for the San Joaquin

Valley’s PM10 SIP. ARB staff commits to bring this measure to the Board between

2003 and 2006. Emission reductions from this measure will be used toward meeting

ARB’s commitment to adopt new measures between 2002 and 2008 that reduce

emissions by an additional 10 tpd NOx and 0.5 tpd direct PM10 in the San Joaquin

Valley by 2010.
Resolution 03-22

9 Attachment A-3

Commitments for Future SIPs:

As other areas of the State develop attainment SIPs that require additional

emission reductions to show progress and/or attainment, we will work with the

appropriate local air districts to determine which State and/or federal measures are

appropriate to include for federal approval.
Resolution 03-22

1 Attachment A-4

ATTACHMENT A-4

REVISED OFF-RD CI-1

a. OFF-RD CI-1: Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing HeavyDuty Off-Road Equipment Fleet [Compression-Ignition Engines]

Time Frame: Adopt 2004-2008; Implement 2006-2010

Responsible Agencies: ARB

New heavy-duty diesel engine standards provide significant, long-term reductions

in emissions as the fleet turns over. Compliance and enforcement programs are

designed to ensure that new engines maintain their low emission levels. However, to

improve air quality and benefit public health in the near-term, emissions from the

existing heavy-duty diesel equipment fleet must be reduced.

The strategies discussed here specifically target in-use emissions from the

existing fleet. These strategies can provide near-term reductions, depending on when

they are implemented, but they can also provide longer-term reductions lasting until

each affected vehicle is replaced with a newer vehicle meeting more stringent emission

standards.

The public transit bus fleet rule, adopted by the ARB in February 2000, requires

transit agencies to reduce NOx and PM emissions from their buses. As called for in the

Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, which was adopted by the Board in September 2000, ARB

is expanding its opportunities to achieve PM reductions, and in most cases, ROG

reductions. These reductions will be accomplished through the implementation of

additional rules targeting not only other on-road vehicles, but heavy-duty diesel off-road

vehicles and equipment as well. The in-use emission control rules were originally

envisioned as primarily PM control measures; however, because of the statewide need

for NOx reductions and the need to minimize impacts on affected heavy-duty diesel

equipment operators, the ARB is now committing to an integrated approach to achieve

PM, NOx and ROG reductions.

There are a variety of options available to reduce PM, NOx, and ROG emissions

from existing diesel off-road engines including retrofit technology, engine repowers,

accelerated fleet turnover, and other options.

The installation of hardware-based retrofit technologies, such as diesel

particulate filters and lean NOx catalysts, has the potential to reduce emissions.

Through the Diesel Emission Control Strategy Verification Procedure, ARB adopted a

multi-level approach for categorizing strategies based on their verified PM emission

reductions. “Level 1” verification applies to strategies that achieve at least a 25 percent

PM reduction; “Level 2” verification applies to strategies that achieve at least a

50 percent PM reduction; and “Level 3” verification applies to strategies that achieve at

least an 85 percent PM reduction, or reduce exhaust PM levels to no more than
Resolution 03-22

2 Attachment A-4

0.01 g/bhp-hr. The verification procedure also allows for strategy verification based on

a minimum 15 percent NOx emission reduction when coupled with at least a Level 1 PM

verification. Together with regulations that will require the use of retrofits or other

strategies verified to the highest level possible, this multi-level approach ensures the

development of high-efficiency control strategies. At the same time, it allows for lower

level reductions in applications where higher level options are not yet available, thus

ensuring that diesel PM and NOx emissions are reduced in a timely manner when and

where they can be realized. Currently, a PM control system that also achieves NOx

reductions has been verified for use on a limited number of on-road diesel engine

families; the system is capable of reducing NOx emissions by approximately 25 percent.

Transfer of this technology to off-road engines could possibly provide another option to

reduce NOx emissions.

Another means to reduce emissions is to replace older, uncontrolled engines with

new, certified engines meeting the Tier 1 standards (referred to as engine repowers).

Replacing uncontrolled engines with Tier 1 engines has the potential to reduce NOx

emissions by approximately one-third. Because of the significant technical changes to

achieve Tier 2 emission levels (including significant frame and body design changes),

the potential for repowering uncontrolled engines with Tier 2 engines is small.

Replacing older vehicles/equipment with new, lower-emitting models (referred to as

accelerated fleet turnover) would also reduce emissions of PM and NOx.

The use of low-sulfur diesel fuel may be an integral strategy component. Most

catalyst-based diesel particulate filters provide the greatest emission reductions when

used with low-sulfur diesel fuel (sulfur content of 15 ppmw or less). Reductions in both

NOx and PM emissions could be achieved through the use of cleaner burning fuels

such as alternative fuels or diesel water emulsions.

In-use emission control programs for off-road vehicles/equipment could be

implemented through a variety of approaches. One such approach could require large

State construction contracts to include a demonstration of reductions as a contract

condition. In addition, an in-use emission control rule for off-road equipment could

apply specifically to publicly-owned fleets. ARB could also establish a best available

control technology requirement, as we did in the solid-waste collection vehicle

regulation, and prescribe a phase-in schedule.

While an off-road in-use emission control program is certainly feasible, its

effectiveness may be less than optimum without a statewide registration program. This

is because it would be difficult to track certain types of retrofitted off-road equipment,

thereby hampering the ability to directly enforce the retrofit installation. Therefore, ARB

staff is also considering a proposal for a registration requirement in California for offroad equipment (see measure OFF-RD CI-2).

A likely timeframe for implementing an in-use emission control rule for privatelyowned off-road vehicles/equipment would be to start in 2007. By that time, there should

already be widespread availability of low-sulfur diesel fuel (sulfur content of 15 ppmw or
Resolution 03-22

3 Attachment A-4

less), which is necessary for many retrofit technologies to perform effectively and

reliably. For publicly-owned fleets, however, a phased-in implementation schedule

beginning earlier may be considered since California refiners are capable of producing

very low sulfur diesel fuel in sufficient quantities for fleet use.

Table II-C-6 below shows the estimated emission benefits in the South Coast Air

Basin from implementation of the in-use emission control rules. Table II-C-7 shows the

estimated benefits in the San Joaquin Valley. The staff has not yet estimated the NOx

reductions that could be achieved in the San Joaquin Valley through implementation of

the in-use emission control rules. As such, the NOx reductions are not reflected in

Table II-C-7.

Table II-C-6

OFF-RD CI-1: Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing Off-Road

Equipment Fleet [Compression-Ignition Engines]

Estimated Emission Reductions

(South Coast, Summer Planning, tpd)

Pollutant 2005

2006

(Annual

Average)

2008 2010 2020

ROG n/a 0.03-0.10 0.8-2.8 2.3-7.8 1.3-4.3

NOx n/a NQ NQ 8-10 NQ

PM10 n/a 0.02-0.06 0.6-1.9 1.6-5.4 0.9-3.2

CO Not Quantified 9-29 NQ

Table II-C-7

OFF-RD CI-1: Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing Off-Road

Equipment Fleet [Compression-Ignition Engines]

Estimated Emission Reductions

(San Joaquin Valley, Winter Planning, tpd)

Pollutant 2010

ROG 1.0

NOx 0

PM10 0.4

SIP Commitment for Measure OFF-RD CI-1

South Coast 2003 SIP Commitment:

ARB staff proposes to commit to bring this measure to the Board between

2004 and 2008. The measure as proposed to the Board will, at a minimum, achieve

between 8 and 10 tpd of NOx and between 2.3 and 7.8 tpd of ROG reductions in the

South Coast Air Basin in 2010.
Resolution 03-22

4 Attachment A-4

San Joaquin Valley 2003 PM10 SIP Commitment:

On June 26, 2003, the Board approved State commitments for the San Joaquin

Valley’s PM10 SIP. ARB staff commits to bring this measure to Board between 2004

and 2008. Emission reductions from this measure will be used toward meeting ARB’s

commitment to adopt new measures between 2002 and 2008 that reduce emissions by

an additional 10 tpd NOx and 0.5 tpd direct PM10 in the San Joaquin Valley by 2010.

Commitments for Future SIPs:

As other areas of the State develop attainment SIPs that require additional

emission reductions to show progress and/or attainment, we will work with the

appropriate local air districts to determine which State and/or federal measures are

appropriate to include for federal approval.
1 Attachment A-5

ATTACHMENT A-5

Table I-6

State Annual Adoption Commitments for Near-Term Measures

2003 South Coast Ozone SIP

 (emission reductions in tons per day in 2010, summer planning inventory)

2003 2004 2005 2006 Total State Reductions from

Near-Term Measures

ROG 10 4 22 14 50

NOx 11 5 23 20 59

In addition to the emission reduction commitments identified in Table I-6, the ARB also

commits to achieving further ROG and NOx reductions as specified in Attachment A-7 to

Resolution 03-22.
Resolution 03-22

 1 Attachment A-6

ATTACHMENT A-6

Table I-7

State Strategy

2003 South Coast Ozone SIP

(tons per day in 2010)

Expected Reductions

(South Coast 2010)* Strategy

(Agency) Name FinalAction Date

Implementation

Date ROG NOx

DEFINED STATE MEASURES TO BE DEVELOPED AND PROPOSED

LT/MEDDUTY-1

(ARB)

Replace or Upgrade Emission Control

Systems on Existing Passenger Vehicles 2005 2007-2008 0-20 0-20

LT/MEDDUTY-2

(BAR)

Improve Smog Check to Reduce

Emissions from Existing Passenger and

Cargo Vehicles

2002-2005 2002-2006 5.6-5.8 8.0-8.4

ON-RD

HVY-DUTY-1

(ARB)

Augment Truck and Bus Highway

Inspections with Community-Based

Inspections

2003 2005 0-0.1 0

ON-RD

HVY-DUTY-2

(ARB)

Capture and Control Vapors from

Gasoline Cargo Tankers 2005 2006-2007 4-5 0

ON-RD

HVY-DUTY-3

(ARB)

Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the

Existing and New Truck/Bus Fleet 2003-2006 2004-2010 1.4-4.5 16-21

OFF-RD CI-1

(ARB)

Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the

Existing Heavy-Duty Off-Road Equipment

Fleet (Compression Ignition Engines)

2004-2008 2006-2010 2.3-7.8 8-10

OFF-RD CI-2

(ARB)

Implement Registration and Inspection

Program for Existing Heavy-Duty OffRoad Equipment to Detect Excess

Emissions (Compression Ignition

Engines)

2006-2009 2010 NQ NQ

OFF-RD

LSI-1

(ARB)

Set Lower Emission Standards for New

Off-Road Gas Engines (Spark Ignited

Engines 25 hp and Greater)

2004-2005 2007 0 0.8

OFF-RD

LSI-2

(ARB)

Clean Up Off-Road Gas Equipment

Through Retrofit Controls and New

Emission Standards (Spark-Ignition

Engines 25 hp and Greater)

2004 2006-2012 0.8-2.0 2-4

SMALL

OFF-RD-1

(ARB)

Set Lower Emission Standards for New

Handheld Small Engines and Equipment

(Spark Ignited Engines Under 25 hp such

as Weed Trimmers, Leaf Blowers, and

Chainsaws)

2003 2005 1.9 0.2

SMALL

OFF-RD-2

(ARB)

Set Lower Emission Standards for New

Non-Handheld Small Engines and

Equipment (Spark Ignited Engines Under

25 hp such as Lawnmowers)

2003 2007 6.3-7.4 0.6-1.9

MARINE-1

(ARB)

Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the

Existing Harbor Craft Fleet – Cleaner

Engines and Fuels

2003-2005 2005 0.1 2.7
Resolution 03-22

 2 Attachment A-6

Expected Reductions

(South Coast 2010)* Strategy

(Agency) Name Final

Action Date

Implementation

Date ROG NOx

MARINE-2

(ARB)

Pursue Approaches to Reduce LandBased Port Emissions – Alternative

Fuels, Cleaner Engines, Retrofit Controls,

Electrification, Education Programs,

Operational Controls

2003-2005 2003-2010 0.1 0.1

FUEL-1

(ARB)

Set Additives Standards for Diesel Fuel to

Control Engine Deposits 2006-2009 2006-2010 NQ NQ

FUEL-2

(ARB)

Set Low-Sulfur Standards for Diesel Fuel

for Trucks/Buses, Off-Road Equipment,

and Stationary Engines

2003 2006 Enabling Enabling

CONS-1

(ARB)

Set New Consumer Products Limits for

2006 2003-2004 2006 2.3 0

CONS-2

(ARB)

Set New Consumer Products Limits for

2008-2010 2006-2008 2008-2010 8.5-15 0

FVR-1

(ARB)

Increase Recovery of Fuel Vapors from

Aboveground Storage Tanks 2003 2007 0-0.1 0

FVR-2

(ARB)

Recover Fuel Vapors from Gasoline

Dispensing at Marinas 2006-2009 2006-2010 0-0.1 0

FVR-3

(ARB)

Reduce Fuel Permeation Through

Gasoline Dispenser Hoses 2004 2007 0-0.7 0

PEST-1

(DPR) Implement Existing Pesticide Strategy --- 1996-2010 Baseline N/A

Potential Range for Defined Near-Term State Measures 33.3-72.9 38.4-69.1

Minimum Commitment Via Adoption 2003-2006 50 59

ADDITIONAL MEASURE

(ARB)

Achieve Further Emission Reductions

from On-Road and Off-Road Mobile

Sources and Consumer Products

2005-2008 2006-2010 97

PROCESS FOR LONG-TERM STRATEGY

LONG-TERM

STRATEGY

(ARB)

Lead Multi-Agency Effort (State, federal

and local) and Public Process Beginning

in 2004 to Identify and Adopt Long-Term

Measures, Including up to 66 tpd

ROG+NOx Reductions Contingent on

Authority and Funding

2004-2007 2010 118-233** 0-159**

* Based on ARB’s summer planning emission inventory for the 2003 South Coast SIP.

** Range based on how much of 97 tpd commitment is achieved from ROG versus NOx, and U.S. EPA

action on federal responsibility for 18 tpd ROG and 68 tpd NOx reductions.
Resolution 03-22

 1 Attachment A-7

ATTACHMENT A-7

Achieve Further Emission Reductions from On-Road and Off-Road Mobile

Sources and Consumer Products

Time Frame: Action 2005-2008; Implement 2006-2010

Responsible Agency: ARB

Proposed Strategy:

This measure proposes to achieve additional emission reductions from on- and

off-road mobile sources and consumer products. Such emission reductions are needed

to ensure expeditious progress and attainment of federal ambient air quality standards.

The emission reduction target set forth herein is in addition to that specified for

other short-range measures to be implemented by ARB. To implement this measure

and achieve the overall emission reduction target, ARB — contingent upon their

feasibility as evaluated as specified in the first paragraph of Attachment A-1 of

Resolution 03-22 — will develop and adopt regulations for on- and off-road mobile

sources and consumer products between 2005 and 2008, with implementation in 2006-

2010. These regulations and other actions may include any of the following items or

other actions as deemed appropriate by staff and the Board.

• Light and Medium-Duty Vehicles

- Replacement of catalytic converters/carbon canisters on all

applicable models at approximately 100,000 mile intervals.

- Enhance the I & M program for light and medium-duty vehicles by

using remote sensing to identify high emitters.

- 4-wheel/all wheel-drive exemption from loaded mode testing.

- New reformulated gasoline standards that primarily reduce sulfur

contents, cap RVP, lower distillation temperatures, and olefins.

• Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks/Buses

- Retrofit of applicable in-use vehicles with add-on controls such as

lean-NOx catalysts.

• Recreational Marine

- Replacement of 2-stroke recreational marine engines with cleaner

4-stroke engines through an incentive program such as a buy-back

program.

- Retrofit applicable 4-stroke recreational marine engines with

catalytic converters.
Resolution 03-22

 2 Attachment A-7

• Construction/Industrial Diesel

- Require or incentivize the repowering of existing off-road diesel

construction and industrial equipment with engines meeting new

engine emission standards.

• Residential Lawn and Garden

- Phase-in of zero-emitting residential lawn mowers and garden

equipment.

• Consumer Products

- Additional reductions from consumer products through the transfer

of low and ultra-low VOC stationary source technologies to

consumer products such as clean-up solvents.

• Ships

- Cold ironing for ships calling on the Ports of Long Beach and

Los Angeles.

• Trains

- Non-MOU switcher and short-haul locomotives to use low-emission

units such as LNG and battery/diesel hybrids.

The following table presents the additional emission reductions targeted in this

control measure. ARB commits to achieve, at minimum, the ROG and NOx reduction

target in this control measure through adoption and implementation of any combination

of feasible control strategies affecting on-road and off-road mobile sources and

consumer products.

Achieve Further Emission Reductions from On-Road and Off-Road

Mobile Sources and Consumer Products

(South Coast, Summer Planning, tpd)

Pollutant 2010

ROG + NOx 97

SIP Commitment to Achieve Further Emission Reductions from

On-Road and Off-Road Mobile Sources and Consumer Products

South Coast 2003 SIP Commitment:

ARB staff proposes to implement this measure beginning in 2005. The measure

will achieve a combined 97 tpd of ROG and NOx reductions in the South Coast Air

Basin in 2010.
Resolution 03-22

Attachment B

ATTACHMENT B

Responses to Environmental Issues Raised

During the Public Review Period for the 2003 State and Federal Strategy for

the California State Implementation Plan
Resolution 03-22

1 Attachment B

Comments

1. Comment: Nissan’s forklift line-up is comprised of battery, LSI engine, and

CI engine forklifts. Each type of forklift has its merit and characteristics, and

ultimate purchasers have an inevitable reason for their selection of electric

forklifts or engine powered forklifts. One of the reasons customers choose

engine forklifts over electric forklifts is because the battery in electric forklifts

have a potentially hazardous nature and disposal has a negative effect on the

environment. (Nissan Motor Co., LTD, September 30, 2003).

Agency Response:

ARB contracted with A.D. Little / Acurex Environmental Corporation to

evaluate fuel-cycle (indirect) emissions and battery disposal issues. While

electrification of forklifts will result in the increased production and use of

batteries, Acurex determined that lead-acid batteries are well regulated and

banned from municipal solid waste landfills. Additionally, California has an

established recycling infrastructure, and the recycle rate for lead-acid

batteries is currently over 95%.

An increase in the number of spent batteries to be processed could potentially

have an impact on the recycling industry and on the disposal system for nonrecyclable materials. Leasing, deposit, or rebate programs for electric

batteries could be required to increase recycling. Exchanging a spent battery

for a new battery at the time of replacement could also reduce waste impacts.

With these mitigation measures in place, battery disposal impacts should not

be significant.

ARB staff responded previously to this comment as part of the Board’s

consideration of the San Joaquin Valley 2003 PM10 SIP (SJV PM10 SIP).

The public hearing on the SJV PM10 SIP was held on June 23, 2003. The

ARB’s response to comments for the SJV PM10 SIP are hereby incorporated

by reference and attached.

2. Comment : Any measure by CARB or the District which may affect the

operational capacity of one or more of the airports in the Basin might be

perceived as providing air quality impact reductions at the constrained airport,

but this does not mean that there has been a net air quality benefit in the

Basin generally. If passenger traffic is reduced at one airport in the Basin

because of regulatory constraints, that traffic may be served at another Basin

air port or the displaced passengers may choose to drive to their ultimate

destination. For environmental purposes, the significant difference is that

those passengers will have to either drive further to reach the second airport

to obtain the air service that they desire, or they will have to drive to their final
Resolution 03-22

2 Attachment B

destination, thereby increasing regional VMT and traffic congestion – with the

concomitant negative impacts on air quality. (Air Improvement Resource, Inc.

June 30, 2003, Comments on Draft Socioeconomic Report for the 2003

Revisions to the Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin.)

Agency Response:

The State Strategy for the California SIP does not include any control

measures that would affect capacity at airports.

3. Comment: Complying with requirements outlined in CONS1 and CONS2

may be technically infeasible at this time. The Board must keep in mind that

to have companies build products that may meet VOC reduction goals but

provide our customers with products that do not perform to their expectations

will ultimately drive them to find other products. The alternative products they

find may have higher VOCs or may be more hazardous to the environment in

other ways or may be more hazardous for them to use. (Mark Gindling,

Director of Research, Buckeye International, October 13, 2003)

Agency Response:

Health and Safety Code section 41712 requires the ARB to set VOC limits

that are technologically and commercially feasible. Thus, a VOC limit can not

be set which would require a manufacturer to reformulate its product so that

the product would not perform its basic intended function. In setting VOC

standards, the ARB staff takes this legal mandate seriously and ensures that

products complying with the standards will be efficacious. Therefore, we do

not expect companies to switch to alternative products that might have

adverse environmental impacts.

4. Comment: Industry disagrees with ARB’s proposal to evaluate limiting the

use of hydrocarbon propellants in the aerosol form of consumer products. If

the aerosol industry is forced to adopt for example, dimethyl ether as a

propellant of choice, the resulting products will have more propellant with a

higher reactivity than the current formulations. (Allen M. Stegman, Corporate

Manager of Environmental Affairs, Valspar, October 17, 2003; CSPA,

October 23, 2003; Alan Howarth, President, Hydrosol, Inc., October 15, 2003;

Ian Gecker, President, Ian Gecker & Associates Consulting, LLC,

October 19, 2003; Stephen Bates, General Manager, Shield Packaging of

California, October 20, 2003; Harry B. McCain, Vice President of Technical

Services, Aeropres Corporation, October 14, 2003)

Agency Response:

While we agree that propane and butane are less photochemically reactive

than some other VOCs, they are VOCs, and are not low enough in reactivity

to qualify for exemption. In fact, dimethyl ether is lower in reactivity than

normal or iso-butane (Propane 0.56; n-butane 1.33; iso-butane 1.35; dimethyl
Resolution 03-22

3 Attachment B

ether 0.93). Hence, depending on the hydrocarbon propellant blend the

hydrocarbon propellant could be more reactive than a dimethyl ether

propelled product.

Our experience has shown that, in the case of aerosol coatings, water-based

products formulated with dimethyl ether as propellant and co-solvent are

considerably less reactive than their solvent-based hydrocarbon propelled

counterparts. It is also worth noting that dimethyl ether performs a dual

function in products containing water acting both as a solvent for the active

ingredients, as well as the means to expel the product. Hydrocarbon

propellants, such as propane and butane, are fairly poor solvents, leading to

the addition of higher reactive VOCs to provide solvency for active

ingredients.

Limiting use of hydrocarbon propellants is one of several options that staff will

evaluate for future, additional VOC reductions.

When setting standards for aerosol products, the ARB will analyze the

possibility that propellants with higher reactivity will be used, and will structure

the regulatory requirements to ensure that an increase in ozone formation will

not result.

5. Comment: ARB’s proposal to evaluate limiting the use of hydrocarbon

propellants in the aerosol form of consumer products may increase global

warming. (CSPA, October 23, 2003)

Agency Response:

Alternative compounds used to meet lower VOC limits in the Proposed

Strategy’s consumer products measures could be greenhouse gases. For

aerosol products to meet the VOC limits in the proposed regulations,

manufacturers may choose to replace some or all of the typical hydrocarbon

propellants with HFC-152a or CO2, both of which are greenhose gases.

HFC-152a has no ozone depletion potential, does not contribute to the

formation of ground level ozone, is low in toxicity, and is only mildly

flammable. In addition, HFC-152a has the lowest global warming potential of

all the HFCs and an atmospheric lifetime of only 1.5 years. Due to the high

cost of HFC-152a (as much as five to seven times greater than other

hydrocarbon propellants), it is anticipated that manufacturers will use as little

HFC-152a as possible when reformulating their aerosol products.

Consequently, the impact on global warming from the increased use of HFC152a should be negligible. However, further analysis of the properties and

effects of HFC-152a is needed. Should the analysis reveal significant

impacts, ARB staff would reassess the control strategy. CO2 used as a

replacement for hydrocarbon propellants would be a recycled byproduct from

existing processes and would therefore not contribute to global warming.
Resolution 03-22

4 Attachment B

It should be noted that when replacing HC propellants there are more options

available than HFC 152a. Alternative packaging, where no propellant is

necessary, and compressed gases, such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen, are

other options for reformulating aerosols in some categories.
Resolution 03-22

Attachment B

RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES RAISED

DURING THE 45-DAY PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD

FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 2003 PM-10 SIP

Responses to Comments

on

Proposed State Implementation Plan Measures: LT/MED-DUTY-1,

LT/MED-DUTY-2, ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3, OFF-RD CI-1, OFF-RD LSI-2,

and OFF-RD LSI-3
Resolution 03-22

1 Attachment A-7

Comments

1. Comment: Forklift operators prefer propane-powered forklifts because of their

ability to outperform electric forklifts under rigorous conditions (e.g., push and pull

loads, operate up and down inclines, and maintain a higher travel speed and lift

speed when loaded). If forced to purchase electric forklifts, they would shift to

diesel-powered forklifts instead in order to satisfy the demands of their business

operations. This would result in higher NOx emissions (than from a propanepowered forklift), and greater exposure to toxic air contaminants (the California Air

Resources Board (ARB) identified the particulate matter component of diesel

exhaust as a toxic air contaminant in 1998).2

Commenter number: 1-6, 9, 11, 12, 16-33, 36-38, 40-43, 45, 47, 51, 59, 62, 64-67,

69-72,74-79, 82-189, 191-213, 215-219, 306-314, 316-323, 330, 331, 334-336,

338-343, 345-346, 348-354, 357-366, 368-388, 392-432, 434-482, 484, 486-491, 493,

497-502, 504-507, 509-510, 512-515, 517, 519, 548-556, 561, 563-564, 568-573,

575-584, 586, 588, 590, 603-605, 608-617, 619, 621-622.

Agency Response:

This comment was directed at State Implementation Plan (SIP) Measure LSI-3, which

required that all purchases and leases of new forklifts with a lift capacity of less than

8,000 pounds be electric-powered. LSI-3 has since been replaced in the SIP by LSI-2

Consolidated (LSI-2C). LSI-2C does not contain the same electric lease/purchase

requirement. Instead, LSI-2C directs staff to assess the feasibility of establishing

emission standards that are more stringent than those required by LSI-1 based on the

availability of zero and near-zero emission forklift technologies. This provides facility

operators with the flexibility to continue to operate internal combustion engine-powered

(primarily propane) forklifts if necessary and obviates the impulse to purchase diesel

forklifts.

Any regulation implementing the commitments of LSI-2C will be developed with full

consideration of the operational limits of electric forklifts and the needs of forklift

operators. Specific exemptions and requirements will be determined, in consultation

with industry, during the regulatory development process. The regulatory development

process will also include careful consideration of diesel forklift purchases and forklift

rentals to ensure these categories are not utilized to circumvent the regulation and

cause unintended emissions increases.

The issue of exposure to the particulate matter component of diesel exhaust, which is a

toxic air contaminant, is addressed in the agency response to comment 14.

 

2 A list of the commenters is at the end of the document.
Resolution 03-22

2 Attachment B

2. Comment: An increase in electric forklifts would result in a corresponding increase

in the electrical energy required to recharge the batteries on a regular basis. An

increase in electrical consumption would, in turn, create a greater demand for

electricity at generating facilities. The ARB is aware of the energy supply shortage

that existed in California in the spring and summer of 2001.

Commenter number: 7, 15, 44, 53, 57, 59-60, 68, 73, 80-81, 88-132, 222, 272, 305,

319, 327, 333, 337, 340-343, 382, 394-424, 439-467, 473, 496, 508, 510, 512-519,

548-562, 587, 605, 607, 609, 613, 620.

Agency Response:

In considering this comment, ARB staff referred to an analogous comment pertaining to

the Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation. In that analysis, the ARB in cooperation with the

California Energy Commission evaluated the impacts to our electricity supply from

battery electric vehicles. First, most vehicle recharging occurs during off-peak hours

due to lower rates and convenience, and will not contribute to the shortages that have

been prevalent during peak hours. Second, the total number of electric vehicles and

electricity demand from them is extremely small when compared to the overall system

demand. Vehicles on the road today account for about 0.005 percent (5/1000ths of one

percent) of the total annual energy use. In the larger numbers reasonably expected by

the electric vehicle regulations, total electrical use from battery electric vehicles would

have been approximately 0.12 percent (12/100ths of one percent) of the projected

demand in 2010. In recognition of this energy demand and the fact that new power

plants are being built to alleviate the peak power shortages over the new decade, ARB

believes that the use of battery electric vehicles will have no meaningful impact on

California’s energy situation.

To get a sense of the additional energy burden that LSI-3 represented, staff assumed

that 15,000 electric forklifts with an average of 50 horsepower (37.3kW) would be

operated at a 30 percent load factor for 1900 hours per year. The resulting energy

demand is about 15% more than that determined for electric vehicles. Thus, electric

forklifts would have about the same energy demand of electric vehicles in 2010, or

about 0.14 percent (14/100ths of one percent) of the projected demand in 2010 (see

above discussion).

3. Comment: Propane is one of the cleanest of all fossil fuels, is non-toxic, and can be

used to safely power forklifts both indoors and outdoors. When following the service

maintenance schedule, it ensures the best possible emissions. And with propane,

there is no spillage loss or evaporation into the atmosphere.

Commenter number: 7, 82, 134-189, 191-200, 220-305, 333, 383, 387, 618.
Resolution 03-22

3 Attachment B

Agency Response:

The commenter is correct in stating that propane is one of the cleanest of the fossil

fuels. Emissions from propane-powered forklifts, however, are still significant. In

addition, evaporative emissions from propane tank filling is three times greater than

evaporation from refueling gasoline-powered lifts. The first step in reducing overall

forklift emissions was CARB’s 1998 Off-Road LSI Engine Regulations that phased in, in

25 percent increments, a requirement that all new forklifts meet a 3.0 gram per brake

horsepower-hour (3.0 g/bhp-hr) NOx standard by 2004. The next step was to

harmonize the State standard with the federal requirement to decrease emissions

further to 2.0 g/bhp-hr by 2007. While these two steps reduce the emissions from

propane significantly, the implementation of zero and near-zero emission standards will

provide the State with emission reductions that it needs as it tries to achieve healthful

air quality standards for its citizens. Also see comment #8 regarding upstream

emissions relative to electricity.

4. Comment: From an emissions standpoint, the sealed fuel system in a

propane-powered forklift meets federal standards for clean emissions and

propane-powered forklifts are approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration

for use in food processing plants.

Commenter number: 222, 272, 300.

Agency Response:

Again, we acknowledge that propane is cleaner than most other fossil fuels. However,

while a well-maintained and controlled propane-powered forklift may be able to meet the

federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) worker safety standards,

it will still contribute to poor ambient air quality in the State. Given that we still need to

identify SIP emission reductions that will one day allow us to achieve federal ambient air

quality standards, we need to look at all feasible zero and near-zero emission control

options at our disposal.

5. Comment: By next year, 100 percent of new propane forklifts will have to comply

with CARB’s 1998 emission standards Off-Road LSI Engine Regulations. These new

forklifts, redesigned in the last five years to meet the Tier 1 LSI emissions standards

and certified to levels well below the requirements, are significantly cleaner than

existing forklifts and should be given a chance to help in the overall emissions

reductions we all desire. How can you justify the use of low emissions technology

on new forklifts and then turn around and prohibit their use without first

understanding the positive impact that these new forklifts will have on the

environment?
Resolution 03-22

4 Attachment B

Commenter number: 1-6, 8-9, 13, 15-33, 36-38, 40, 42-43, 45, 47, 49, 56, 60, 62,

64-68, 70-87, 133, 201-213, 215-218, 222, 272, 300, 306-314, 316-324, 327, 329-331,

334-343, 345-346, 348-354, 356-369, 371-374, 376-381, 384-386, 388-430, 432-472,

474-482, 484-491, 493-495, 497-498, 500-507, 509, 511, 557-560, 562-564, 568-584,

586, 588, 590-591, 603-604, 606, 608-617, 619, 621-622.

Agency Response:

More emissions reductions are needed than we achieved with the Tier I rule. The

proposal is feasible and should therefore be considered. Forklifts produced and sold

meeting the 1998 standards are making a significant contribution to clean air. The LSI-I

measure calls for ARB to align California spark ignition standards with federal standards

in 2007, forcing further design anyway. Combined LSI 2 & 3 explores the use of

alternative near zero emission standards that will build on existing work to reduce

emissions.

6. Comment: The requirement to purchase electric forklifts could have the unintended

consequence of causing users to retain older forklifts past their normal useful life

(operators may seek to extend the lifetime operational capability of current forklifts

rather than purchase electric lifts). This creates the possibility of significantly

eliminating gains in emissions reductions, as reflected in the attached analysis by

Sierra Research.

Commenter number: 11, 13, 15, 41, 49, 56, 60, 80-81, 222, 272, 324, 340-343, 356,

367, 385, 394-424, 433, 439-468, 492, 494-495, 499, 503, 507, 511, 557-560, 562, 566,

578, 591, 606, 609, 613.

Agency Response:

Sierra Research, in commenting on SIP Measure LSI-3 in their June 21 and 24, 2003

memos to the Western Propane Gas Association estimated the impact of decreased

sales of new electric forklifts as a result of users attempting to extend the useful life of

their existing ICE forklifts. Sierra Research modified the age distribution of the 2010

fleet assuming reduced sales of 10 and 20 percent (as compared to 100 sale of

electric.) In the second memo, more severe assumptions of 15 and 30 percent were

made. The impact of this revised assumption was a reduction in, or complete

elimination of emission benefits from LSI-3. While Sierra Research didn’t normalize the

age distribution to 100 percent in these analyses, resulting in underestimates of new

electric forklift sales and overestimates of the increased retention of older ICE forklifts, it

is apparent that if a high percentage of users retained older forklifts, it would have an

impact on emission reductions.

However, SIP Measure LSI-2C does not require that 100 percent of new forklift sales or

leases be electric. Instead, it requires that staff assess the feasibility of establishing

emission standards more stringent than those required by SIP Measure LSI-1 based on

the availability of zero and near-zero emission forklift technologies. Staff expects that
Resolution 03-22

5 Attachment B

the economic impact of these more stringent LSI engine emission standards on forklift

users would be relatively minor, reflecting the prevalence of low-emission technology in

new forklifts. Thus, we do not expect to see a significant increase in the number of

users seeking to extend the lifetime operational capability of their existing forklifts.

7. Comment: Instead of tightening regulations on forklifts, we should be focused on

implementing low emission technologies for other engines such as portable

generators, diesel-powered refuse trucks, and school buses. We should also focus

on reducing commuting and development since 40 percent of current emissions are

from automobiles.

Commenter number: 1-6, 9, 16-33, 36, 38, 40, 42-43, 45, 47, 62, 64-67, 70-72,74-79,

82-87, 133, 190, 201-210, 212-213, 215-218, 306-314, 316-318, 320-323, 330-331,

334, 338-339, 345-346, 348-354, 357-360, 362-366, 368-369, 371-374, 376-381, 384,

386, 388, 392-393, 425-430, 434-438, 469-472, 474-482, 484, 486-491, 493, 497-502,

504-507, 509, 564-565, 569-573, 575-577, 579-584, 586, 588, 590, 603-604, 608,

610-612, 614-617, 619-622.

Agency Response:

The SIP is California’s roadmap for meeting federal health-based air quality standards.

It is essential that the SIP include all cost-effective measures to obtain emission

reductions from various emission sources. This is essential not only to obtain clean air

for the citizens of California, but also to prevent the loss of federal highway funds for

local areas.

The ARB already has a program to control emissions from mobile sources, and in

particular, heavy-duty vehicles, including vehicles such as dump trucks, solid waste

collection vehicles, fuel cargo tankers, larger delivery trucks, urban buses and school

buses, motor homes, and line haul trucks.

As a result of this program, the ARB has

gradually reduced NOx and PM emissions by

over 95 percent from the mid-1980s to the

near-zero levels of the 2007 standards, as

shown in Figure 1.

Additional measures will be forthcoming to

ensure new engines maintain low emissions,

to ensure existing engines emit at the lowest

feasible levels, and to push heavy-duty

technology to achieve zero emissions, where

possible.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Precontrol

98+%

Figure 1

Reducing Diesel Emissions

California New Truck Standards

g / bhp-hr

1988

1988 1991 1994 1998 2002 2007

Model Year

No emission

reduction

PMx10 NOx
Resolution 03-22

6 Attachment B

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80

RFG3

RFD

LPG

LPG NG

FTD

M100 NG

Ethanol

CNG

LNG

cH2 NG SR

Electric

NMOG + NOx Emissions (g/unit fuel)

NMOG NOx

Marginal Emissions

in the SoCAB

 Electricity/kWh

 cH2/kg

 Liquid fuels/gal

 CNG/100 scf

The ARB also has a program to control emissions from portable equipment. Registered

engines must comply with technological requirements which may include 4-degree

injection timing retard, turbochargers, aftercooler/intercoolers, or catalysts. In addition,

some portable engines may be required to meet established emission limitations, visible

emission limitations, fuel specification requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting

requirements.

8. Comment: I cannot imagine that the adoption of LSI – 3 and the resulting pollution

associated with manufacturing batteries, battery storage and disposal, required

electrical infrastructure, increased electrical generation during on-peak hours and

future diesel forklift purchases will in any way provide fewer exhaust emissions in the

long run than the measures you have already adopted. Increased electrical

generation shifts the burden of emission certification to the generator and places a

greater burden on the energy supply infrastructure. Also, in supplying electrical

energy for use in forklift applications, there would be a corresponding increase in

energy required to overcome the associated losses inherent in the distribution of

electrical energy from the source (power plant) through the distribution network

(power lines) before it reaches its end purpose.

Commenter number: 1-6, 9, 13, 16-33, 36-38, 40, 42-45, 47, 49, 51-54, 56-57, 59,

62-79, 82-87, 133, 201-210, 212-213, 215-218, 306-318, 321-324, 327, 330-331,

333-335, 337-343, 345-346, 348-355, 357-369, 371-384, 386, 388-389, 391-432,

434-467, 469-473, 475-482, 484-491, 493, 496-507, 509, 516, 518, 557-560, 562-564,

568-584, 586-588, 590, 603-604, 607-617, 619, 621-622.

Agency Response:

To assess total vehicle emissions from electric

vehicles, ARB contracted with A.D. Little / Acurex

Environmental Corporation to evaluate fuel-cycle

(indirect) emissions and battery disposal issues.

The report relied on the California Energy

Commission to quantify power plant emissions for

electric vehicles. These results were added to

ARB’s own emissions model to compare the

different vehicle technologies. The results

showed that when taking into account both direct

and indirect emissions, the per-vehicle emissions

for battery electric vehicles are about 90 percent

lower for NMOG and NOx, when compared to a

LPG powered vehicle. We expect that

comparisons of electric versus propane forklifts

will show similar results.
Resolution 03-22

7 Attachment B

The use of electric forklifts will increase electricity demand from power plants and the

increase in power production will increase emissions (primarily NOx) from power plants

somewhat. Air district permitting programs are in place to minimize these emission

increases. However, overall emissions should decrease significantly as internal

combustion engines in the forklifts are replaced with engines using energy produced

through the cleaner combustion of natural gas in power plants equipped with

sophisticated pollution controls. The upstream analysis by A.D. Little/Accurex described

above illustrates this point.

While electrification of forklifts will result in the increased production and use of

batteries, Acurex determined that lead-acid batteries are well regulated and banned

from municipal solid waste landfills. Additionally, California has an established recycling

infrastructure, and the recycle rate for lead-acid batteries is currently over 95%.

An increase in the number of spent batteries to be processed could potentially have an

impact on the recycling industry and on the disposal system for non-recyclable

materials. Leasing, deposit, or rebate programs for electric batteries could be required

to increase recycling. Exchanging a spent battery for a new battery at the time of

replacement could also reduce waste impacts. With these mitigation measures in

place, battery disposal impacts should not be significant.

Increased electrical demand in general was discussed in the agency response to

Comment 2. While not discussed in that response, the increased energy demand for

electric forklifts does factor in losses associated with the distribution of electricity.

The increased pollution associated with an increase in the use of diesel-powered

forklifts is addressed in the agency response to comments 1 and 14.

9. Comment: When considering the overall energy efficiency scenario, the current

propane user who switches to electric-powered forklifts would actually consume

more energy resources to operate the equipment than previously used with propane.

Propane has a proven, reliable supply infrastructure that would not consume any

more energy resources than currently exist. One hundred percent of the energy

received by the customer is available for use in the engine.

Commenter number: 14, 44, 48, 50, 55, 327, 340-343, 370, 394-424, 439-467, 492,

503, 511, 557-560, 592-602, 606, 609, 613, 620.

Agency Response: The ARB staff has assessed overall system efficiency for light-duty

vehicles as part of the Zero Emission Vehicle program. In 2000, the ARB and California

Energy Commission funded research to analyze the fuel-cycle energy conversion

efficiency for various fuel types, including battery electric and LPG vehicles. The

findings of this research demonstrate that the use of electric motors in light duty

vehicles is extremely efficient when compared to other technology options. While the

research did not specifically compare forklift technologies, staff expects that many of the

same attributes that make light-duty electric vehicles more efficient than internal
Resolution 03-22

8 Attachment B

combustion technologies will remain true for forklifts. Staff is unaware of any data that

would change this conclusion.

10. Comment: Require forklift retrofits (closed loop feedback systems and three-way

catalysts). There should be an incentive to retrofit or trade in old forklifts for the

newer CARB certified ones that generate fewer pollutants. Also focus on the

development of low-emission technologies and work with affected parties to develop

an appropriate phase-in schedule for transitioning to lower-emitting forklift

technologies. For example, CARB could create certification “bins” in addition to the

existing CARB standard of 3.0 grams/bhp-hr and the soon to be implemented EPA

Tier 2 standard of 2.0 grams/bhp-hr. Some manufacturers already produce forklifts

that have lower emissions than the CARB and EPA standards. By creating bins,

CARB could count these emission reductions toward their SIP commitment.

Commenter number: 11, 41, 190, 329, 367, 390-391, 433, 494-495, 567-568, 591.

Agency Response:

All of these are reasonable suggestions, and most have already been, or soon will be

implemented. SIP Measure LSI-2, now incorporated into Measure LSI-2C, provides for

the retrofit of existing LSI engines, including forklift engines. Staff estimates that about

half of existing forklifts will lend themselves to retrofit with three-way catalysts and in

some cases closed-loop control systems. To help forklift operators with the cost of

retrofit controls, the Carl Moyer Program guidelines were modified this year to provide

incentive grants for the retrofit of existing forklifts.

Staff will be evaluating the feasibility of establishing partial-zero emission forklift or

“PZEF” emission standards that are more stringent than those required by SIP Measure

LSI-1 based on the certification levels of some of the new forklift technologies. If we

can adopt these new standards, we will be able to ensure lower emissions that some

forklift engine families have been certified to.

11. Comment: Emission benefits from LSI – 3 have decreased over 50 percent based

on analysis performed by Sierra Research accounting for the emissions impact of

2007 federal Tier 2 emission standards, a figure already acknowledged by CARB

staff, and could decrease even further. For example, a Sierra Research scenario

assumes a 10 percent decrease in new forklift purchases accompanied by equal

retention of older, higher-emitting forklifts, and determined that emission benefits

would be decreased by as much as another 50 percent. At some point, the benefits

of the proposal, if adopted, will be far less than the cost to implement it.

Commenter number: 329, 385, 433, 468, 494-495, 574, 591, 607.
Resolution 03-22

9 Attachment B

Agency Response:

CARB staff initially calculated emission benefits assuming uncontrolled emissions.

CARB staff, in response to comments, later readjusted estimated emissions downward

by 57 percent for ROG and 40 percent for NOx to take into account the 1998 Off-Road

LSI Engine Regulations. CARB staff cannot modify emissions to account for the 2007

federal Tier 2 standards because emissions reduction commitments associated with the

implementation of these standards were already being counted under SIP Measure

LSI-1. To reflect these reductions again in the LSI-3 measure would be to double-count

them.

ARB staff responded to the Sierra Research scenarios for decreased electric forklift

sales (higher retention of older forklifts) and “buying ahead” in Agency Responses 6.

and 12., respectively.

12. Comment: The requirement to purchase electric forklifts could have the unintended

consequence of causing users to “pre-buy” model year (MY) 2004 ICE forklifts

before the electric forklift control measure takes effect. This creates the possibility of

significantly eliminating gains in emissions reductions, as reflected in the attached

analysis by Sierra Research.

Commenter number: 11, 41, 433, 494-495, 591.

Agency Response:

Sierra Research, in commenting on SIP Measure LSI-3 in their June 21 and 24, 2003

memos to the Western Propane Gas Association quantified the impact of a “buy-ahead”

decision. This decision assumed that 25 percent of the lifts put into service in calendar

years 2005 through 2008 would be ICE forklifts purchased before the original 2005

implementation date of the rule and complying with the 2004 MY emission standards.

Sierra Research analysis indicates that this “pre-buying” would reduce the emission

benefit of LSI-3 by 30 percent. While Sierra Research believes that this “pre-buying” is

a conceivable outcome of LSI-3, staff does not believe that LSI-3 will have this outcome.

Many LSI-3 commenters expressed concern about the economic impact this regulation

would have on their operations and indicated that their profitable operating margin was

extremely thin. As such, staff would not expect forklift operators to purchase a new

forklift, before their existing forklift is due to be replaced.

However, “pre-buying” is a moot issue since SIP Measure LSI-2C does not require the

lease or purchase of electric forklift. As such, there is no incentive for forklift operators

to “pre-buy” a 2004 MY forklift to get around the regulation.

13. Comment: ARB did not provide the inventory of existing forklifts with a lifting

capacity less than 8,000 pounds. This makes it impossible to calculate baseline

emissions. If CARB is relying on historical emissions data, then that data will be
Resolution 03-22

10 Attachment B

inaccurate because it will fail to take into account the forklift emissions standard

adopted in 1998 that imposes a 3.0 gram/bhp-hr NOx emission standard. Any

reduction in emissions must be calculated against the 3.0 gram standard. CARB

has indicated in its explanatory text concerning LSI-3 that the industry is capable of

even greater emissions reductions. Baseline emissions and any benefits of LSI-3

must take this into account.

Commenter number: 432.

Agency Response:

CARB noted in their assumptions that all 25 to 50 horsepower forklifts (population of

5,419) and half of the 51 to 120 horsepower forklifts (population of 19,019) have a lifting

capacity of less than 8,000 pounds. This corresponds to approximately 15,000 forklifts.

As mentioned in the Agency Response to Comment 11., CARB staff have adjusted the

emission benefits expected from LSI-3 to reflect ARB’s 1998 Off-Road LSI Engine

Regulations. CARB staff will be exploring with industry the possibility of setting tiered

lower emission standards so that benefits can be counted toward future SIP

commitments (See Agency Response 10.)

14. Comment: CARB is required by its own rules governing toxic air contaminants

(TACs) to either quantify the cost to health of increasing diesel particulate emissions

or consider the environmental justice issues associated with the increasing

emissions, or both.

Commenter number: 432.

Agency Response:

As noted in the Agency Response to Comment 1., LSI-3 was replaced by the LSI-2C

proposal, which no longer requires that all new leases and purchase of forklifts with less

than 8,000 pound lift capacity be electric. LSI-2C directs staff to evaluate the feasibility

of making emission standards more stringent than that required by LSI-1 based on the

currently and soon -to-be available, zero and near-zero emission forklift technologies.

This provides facility operators with the flexibility to continue to operate internal

combustion engine-powered (primarily propane) forklifts if necessary and obviates the

need/precludes the purchase of diesel forklifts. Additionally, the regulatory development

process will also include careful consideration of diesel forklift purchases and forklift

rentals to ensure these categories are not utilized to circumvent the regulation and

cause unintended emissions increases.

Consequently, the ARB staff does not expect a significant increase in diesel TAC

emissions as a result of this measure. Nor do we anticipate that there will be an

significant increase in the level of diesel TAC emissions impacting low income

communities and communities of color.